Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Agenda Packets-1/26/2009City of Colleyville City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 817. 503.1000 ~nnnnni r~nlla-niilla ~n~--~ .;,, -',, . ,,~ ~ L :;,~ ;r ~-~ ~_ ~~ {+ •:t Meeting Agenda Monday, January 26, 2009 7:15 PM City Council Chambers Capital Improvements Advisory Committee City of Colleyville 100 Main Street ~ Colleyville, Texas 76034 '~~ ~ ~~"'" - 817. 503.1000 Meeting Agenda www.colleyville.com ~...., Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Monday, January 26, 2009 7:15 PM City Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 26, 2006 4. AGENDA ITEMS 4a Consider approval of updates to Impact Fees in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code 5. ADJOURNMENT I here certify the~bove agenda was posted on the bulletin boards at City Hall on Thursday, January 22, 2009 by 5:00 p.m. Amy Shelley, Planning and Zoning Assistant City of Colleyville Page 1 Prinfed on 1/16/2009 City of Colleyville City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 817. 503.1000 IA/IA/IA/ r+~lh~niilh ni+vr~ I ` ti=,: ~~ ~~ r E- Minutes -Draft Monday, June 26, 2006 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Capital Improvements Advisory Committee _ ~ ~';._ City of Colleyville "~ Minutes -Draft ~:... ~~ Capital Improvements Advisory Committee City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 817. 503.1000 vrww.colleyville.com Monday, June 26, 2006 7:00 PM City Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER Committee Member Byerly called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Robert McCormick, Dave Dudziak, Thomas Bartkowski, Mary Taylor, John Blassingame, Denis Duffy, Jeff Byerly and Larry Cole Absent: Andrew Wayne 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Committee Member Dudziak moved to approve the June 12, 2006 meeting minutes as written. Committee Member Taylor seconded. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - McCormick, Dudziak, Taylor, Blassingame, Duffy, Cole, Byerly Absent: 2 - Bartkowski, Wayne 4. TABLED AGENDA ITEMS 4a. Approval of the Roadway, Water and Wastewater Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvement Plans and Impact Fees, Case G-06-014 Committee Member Duffy made motion to remove case G-06-014 from the table. Committee Member Dudziak seconded. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 -McCormick, Dudziak, Taylor, Blassingame, Duffy, Cole, Byerly Absent: 2 - Bartkowski, Wayne Barry LeBaron presented the request and briefed the Committee members. City of Colleyville Page 1 Printed on v76izuua Capital Improvements Advisory Minutes -Draft Committee June 26, 2006 Committee Member Cole questioned staff if any new roads have been built with cash and then reimbursed from impact fees? Eddie Peacock, financial consultant for this project, replied the reason there is not a credit on the roadway impact fees, was that for the projects that were constructed that were impact fee eligible, there was no financing from debt for those projects. Committee Member Cole questioned Mr. Peacock if all of the money came from roadway impact fee revenues? Mr. Peacock replied correct. Committee Member Cole stated for 15 years impact fees have been collected and not one debt bond issue has been floated to build any minor or major collectors in this town. The costs of building the roads are going up and if all of the money to build those roads comes from impact fees, at some point the city will have to get serious about doing a bond issue to help build some roads. Mr. Peacock explained that there was some debt that was issued in the Tax Incrementing Finance (TIF) bonds and there were some intersection improvements that were paid from that within that zone. There were some impact fee projects that were eligible and funded from debt, but a special kind of debt within the TIF zone. Committee Member Duffy questioned staff regarding which TIF is being discussed? Barry LeBaron replied Colleyville only has the one that primarily goes along SH26 and Mr. Peacock explained the intersection improvement at John McCain and SH26. Barry LeBaron replied it might have been a part of the Hall Johnson improvement. Mr. Peacock stated not having the list of projects with him, but that could be the right ones. Barry LeBaron explained the tables in the briefing to the Committee members. Committee Member Byerly questioned staff regarding what is the maximum percent? Barry LeBaron replied about 84% of the max. Committee Member Cole questioned if the roadway impact fee the last time, was collected at 100%? Barry LeBaron replied yes, actually it was at about 93%, but with a slight credit, it ended up being at 100%. Committee Member Dudziak questioned if the impact fee adjustments that the council made was for all impact fees or just roadway? Barry LeBaron replied just roadway on the retail. Committee Member Byerly questioned staff regarding what is the average house worth now in Colleyville compared to five years ago? Barry LeBaron replied about $455,000 on permit valuations which represents about 80% of the cost of a new home. He stated five years City of Colleyville Page 2 Printed on 1/16/2009 Capital Improvements Advisory Minutes -Draft June 26, 2006 Committee ago, about $370,000. Committee Member Cole stated the sewer was at 100% with the $140 figure. He questioned staff if the associates have come up with a projected debt or is that an existing debt on the assumptions for water debt issue? Mr. Nathan, with Kimley-Horn, replied the primary reason for the increase on the roadway side, was due to the state law increase, both dollars spent by the city and also travel on state highway facilities through the city. Previously, there was a calculation to take out that portion of travel; which is now eliminated. This being the primary reason for the increase on the roadway side. For all of the fees, as Colleyville is getting closer to build out, there is less demand in the ten year window for which those costs to be spread among less people. Committee Member Cole questioned Mr. Nathan if the water and sewer figures for debt are actual or projected? Mr. Nathan replied projected. Committee Member Cole stated Colleyville has the highest park fees of any city around, $1800 dollars per house which adds to the total that builders have to pay. Committee Member Duffy questioned staff regarding ,when we charge a $140 for hook up for sewer and we say recover, are we getting what it costs us to hook a person up, or are we getting just a percentage of it. Committee Member Byerly replied that is what is being set today, if we set the figure at 100%, then we would get the cost of the increase of demand on the system. Committee Member Duffy questioned if we set a figure plus an escalation as time moves on, an automatic escalation, will we be protecting ourselves? Barry LeBaron replied those are tap fees, cost of services for going out there and setting up the service, which is different from the impact fees. Impact fees are collected on top of the tap fee. Committee Member Cole replied the impact fee on sewer is so low because the city of Colleyville and cities to the south, got a lot of federal government money to put the main intereceptors on Big Bear Creek and Little Bear Creek. Therefore, Colleyville was way ahead of the curve before that, not having to make a major infrastructure, unlike water which continues to have to make investments Barry LeBaron stated having heard the comments, this being a very complex issue, we need to stay in line with the neighboring towns, they are having the same decision you are making tonight. The city could come back and change these percentages at a later date according to what the neighboring towns are doing. Colleyville is getting this study done before other towns. City of Colleyville Page 3 Printed on 1/16/zvoy Capital Improvements Advisory Minutes -Draft Committee June 26, 2006 Committee Member Taylor stated if we understand this is a ten year projection, this final rate, the 100%, and we know that other cities have not adopted. She stated wanting to see the Committee adopt a rate that is in line with what is going on with other cities, but know that we could come back next year and make changes after other cities have made their decision. Committee Member Blassingame suggested adopting a rate with a 5% annual increase in the clause of the ordinance? Barry LeBaron stated not knowing if an automatic escalation could be placed in the ordinance, he stated having to check with the financial advisor. He suggested to set the rate and then periodically come back and make adjustments as needed, to see if the figures are in line. Committee Member Duffy concurred with Committee Member Blassingame, we should take the lead in this and if we believe inflation this year is going to be 4.3 or 4.4%, we could take a reasonable starting position figure and add 5%. He stated being able to review the escalation clause, and if what we set is too much, then we can reduce it and if not enough, we can increase it. Committee Member Duffy concurred with Committee Member Cole as well and stated not wanting to over price ourselves out of the housing market. We could write this in the ordinance and recommend to city council and between now and the date for city council, we can find out if that is a proper type motion to make. He stated not agreeing with coming back and reviewing again next year. Committee Member Byerly questioned Mr. Nathan regarding what kind of inflation cost is figured in, if the costs of construction are going up or are these figures based on actual construction costs? Mr. Nathan replied everything is figured with today's dollars as far as construction costs. Committee Member Byerly questioned staff regarding as all of the impact fees are collected, does this include any interest the city collects on these funds or does that go into the general fund? Barry LeBaron replied these funds have to maintain their own intergrity and as we collect the funds, we maximize the returns on those by generating interest on those by investing. Committee Member Duffy stated every kind of contract signed today has some kind of escalation cost figured in. Committee Member Blassingame stated this whole process is arbitrary, and stated being comfortable by taking the 25% level, across the board and put a 5% annual increase in January every year. City of Colleyville Page 4 Printed on 1/16/2009 Capital Improvements Advisory Minutes -'Draft June 26, 2006 Committee Committee Member Duffy concurred. Committee Member Cole stated being able to support that motion if made. Committee Member Dudziak stated not being able to support any kind of automatic increase given no review process. He stated that is what this Committee is here for. He stated it would not be fair to the citizens or the builders. We need some recommendations, not an automatic increase. Committee Member Byerly stated wanting to get some ideas, the area builders are looking at the whole dollar amount, regardless of whether is be water, sewer or roadway. Committee Member Cole concurred with Committee Member Dudziak stating an incremental increase may not be the way to go, however, inflation does seem to be at around the 4% and suggested making a side motion for the Committee to review the rates each year. Committee Member Dufffy concurred and stated next year, the figures will not be any different than what we have presented tonight. Commissioner Blassingame moved to approve case G-06-014 with a 25% increase across the board over all impact fees with an automatise 5% annual inflation increase clause to be added to the ordinance. Commissioner Duffy seconded. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 -McCormick, Taylor, Blassingame, Duffy, Cole, Byerly Nay: 1 -Dudziak Absent: 2 - Bartkowski, Wayne 5. REPORTS AND COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT The commission adjourned the meeting at 7:55 PM by acclamation. Amy Shelley, Planning and Zoning Assistant City of Colleyville Page 5 Printed on 1/16/2009 '" "' City Hall ~~ ,~~: City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 ~~~ Agenda Briefing 817.503.1000 www.colleyville.com File Number: File Type: Case Status: Commission Public Hearings Version: 1 Requester: Community Development Department Agenda Date: 01 /26/2009 Agenda No.: 4a Controlling Body: Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Final Action: File Name: Consider approval of updates to Impact Fees in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code Attachments: 2008 Colleyville Roadway Impact Fees Update History of Legislative File Version: Date: Acting Body: Action Text: 1 01/26/2009 Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Title Consider approval of updates to Impact Fees in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code Explanation The City of Colleyville collects Roadway, Water and Wastewater Impact Fees as a function of issuing building permits for new development. Collection of impact fees supports new development paying its share of new public infrastructure improvements required by the additional demands placed on these systems by new development. On May 6, 2008 the City Council added Murphy Road and Lavaca Trail to the Master Thoroughfare Plan as minor collector streets. Adding these streets to the Master Thoroughfare Plan allows the City to spend revenues collected from street impact fees on the subject streets. Subsequent to the, approval of the street additions to the Master Thoroughfare Plan, staff contracted with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in order to undertake an impact fee update that includes adding Murphy Road and Lavaca Trail to the impact fee project list. The attached study was completed in November, 2008 and is now ready for consideration and approval. The process for approving the impact fee update is established by State law and contained in Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code. The regulations require a recommendation from the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC), which is composed of the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and two members of the development City of Colleyville Page 1 Nrintea on ~itsicvuy Agenda Briefing Continued - community. Upon approval by the CIAC, the impact fee update will be approved according to the following scheudle: - City Council, First Reading and Public Hearing -February 17, 2009 - City Council, Second Reading and Public Hearing -March 3, 2009 Recommendation Approval City of Colleyville Page 2 Printed on 1/23/2009 .. -... '' ~~ .~ - = << ~_" ~~ ~ =- '~ ~~ "'-~ ~ _ ~4 ~ ~ ~~ E ~ _~ t ~`~ ~1 ~' _~ - ~,:. ,. ~`_ - - ~_ ,_ ~ ~ i~ ~ __- } ~~ ~ - - _;~ - ~_S = ~ = _. Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Colleyville, Texas City of Texas .-~----- -~~,~ __ Prepared by: ~ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. 801 Cherry Street, Unit 11, Suite 950 Fort Worth, TX 76102 817.335.6511 _ti November 2008 © Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc., 2008 061063012 AARC~rI W. NATHAN ~ ~_ C~~Y oP ~ Kimley-Hom _ ^ ~ and Associates, Inc. ~ i Texas Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... i I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1 II. Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Inputs ......................................................................................2 A. Land Use Assumptions ............................................................................................................................. 2 B. Capital Improvements Plan ....................................................................................................................... 2 III. Methodology For Roadway Impact Fees ...................................................................................... 5 A. Service Area ............................................................................................................................................. 5 B. Service Units ............................................................................................................................................ 5 C. Cost Per Service Unit ................................................................................................................................ 6 D. Cost of the CIp ......................................................................................................................................... 6 E. Service Unit Calculation ........................................................................................................................... 8 IV. Impact Fee Calculation ................................................................................................................12 A. Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit ................................................................................. 12 B. Plan For Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit ................................................................................ 15 C. Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development ....................................................................................... 17 V. Sample Calculations ....................................................................................................................19 VI. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 20 APPENDICES .................................................................................... A. Opinion of Project Cost Worksheets .................................................. B. CIP Service Units of Supply .............................................................. C. Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory .............................................. ................................................ 21 ..................................................... 21 ..................................................... 21 ..................................................... 21 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 1 November 200ki City of Colleyvi]]e, Texas City of ~ Kimley-Hom _ ^ ~ ^ and Associates, Inc. ~ Texas List of Exhibits 1 Capital Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees ...................................................................... 4 List of Tables 1 Capital Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees ....................................................................... 3 2 Level of Use Table ............................................................................................................................ 5 3 Capital Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Cost Opinions ............. 7 4 Transportation Demand Factor Calculations .................................................................................... 10 5 Ten Year Growth Projections .......................................................................................................... 11 6 Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee .................................................................................... 14 7 Land Use/Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET) .................................................................. 16 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 11 November sous City of Colleyville, Texas ~ Kimley-Hom ^ ~ antl Associates, Inc. I. INTRODUCTION ~rry or Texas Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code describes the procedure Texas cities must follow in order to create and implement impact fees. Senate Bi11243 (SB 243) amended Chapter 395 to define an Impact Fee as "a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development." Chapter 395 mandates that impact fees be reviewed and updated at least every five (5) years. Accordingly, the City of Colleyville has initiated a review of its Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, and Impact Fees. The City previously adopted an ordinance on August 2, 2006 updating their water, wastewater and roadway impact fees. Although it is two (2) years since the previous update, the City of Colleyville desired modifications to the Roadway Capital Improvements Plan for Impact Fees, which necessitated this update. The City has retained Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., to provide professional transportation engineering services for the update of their Roadway Impact Fees. This report includes the update of the impact fee calculation in accordance with Chapter 395 and the adopted revisions to the Roadway Capital Improvements Plan. This report introduces and references two of the basic inputs to the Roadway Impact Fee: the Land Use Assumptions and the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Information from these two components is used extensively in the remainder of the report. This report consists of a detailed discussion of the methodology for the computation of impact fees. This discussion - Methodology for Roadway Impact Fees and Impact Fee Calculation addresses each of the components of the computation and modifications required for the update. The components include: • Service Areas • Service Units • Cost Per Service Unit • Cost of the CIP • Service Unit Calculation • Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit • Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development This report also includes a section concerning the Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit. In the case of Roadway Impact Fees, this involves the calculation of a credit from the maximum assessable impact fee for the use of ad valorem taxes to fund the CIP for Impact Fees. The final section of the report is Conclusion, which presents the findings of the Roadway Impact Fee update. 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 1 November zuox City of Colleyville, Texas Ctty of ~ Kimley-Hom ^ ~ and Associates, Inc. ~ ~ ~ Texas II. ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CALCULATION INPUTS A. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Upon review of the land use assumptions prepared for the 2006 update, it was determined that assumptions used in that study remain valid and are still representative of the growth that will occur over between the ten year window (2005 - 2015). As a result, the land use assumptions used in this report (as prepared by the City of Colleyville) are presented in Section 3 of the 2006 update. B. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN The City has identified the City-funded transportation projects needed to accommodate the projected growth within the City. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Roadway Impact Fees is a list of these projects. The CIP includes arterial class roadway facilities, as well as intersection improvements. All of the arterial facilities are part of the currently adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan. It should be noted that the Capital Improvements Plan is a listing of both proposed capacity improvement projects and recently completed projects with excess capacity available to serve new growth. The CIP for Roadway Impact Fees that is proposed for the Impact Fee Update is listed in Table 1 and mapped in Exhibit 1. The table shows the length of each project as well as the facility's Master Thoroughfare Plan classification. The CIP was developed in conjunction with input from City of Colleyville staff and represents those projects that will be needed to accommodate the growth projected in the Land Use Assumptions report. 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 2 November ruux City of Colleyville, Texas ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Hom ~ and Associates, Inc. City o' Texas Table 1. 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees Service Area Proj. # Classification Roadway Limits Len th g (~) In Service Area 1 P6D Colleyville Blvd. S. City Limits [o N. City Limits 4.18 50 2 M4U Brown Trl. (1) Cheek-Sparger Rd. to Mountain Laurel Ln. 0.23 100 3 M4U Brown Trl. (2) Mountain Laurel Ln. to S. City Limits 0.31 I00 4 MC4U Heritage Ave. Cheek-Sparger Rd. m Glade Rd. 1.14 100 5 C2U Bedford Rd. Cheek-Sparger Rd. to Glade Rd. 0.90 100 6 M4D Hall Johnson Rd. SH 26 [o Sycamore Dr. 0.90 100 7 MC4U Riverwalk Dr. Glade Rd. to Hall-Johnson Rd. 0.80 100% 8 M4D Church SL (1) Riverwalk Dr. to SH 26 0.21 100 9 M4U Glade Rd. (1) SH 26 [o Bedford Rd. 0.27 100 10 M2U Glade Rd (2) Bedford Rd. to Martin Pkwy. 2.23 100 1 i l M2U Glade Rd (3) Marlin Pkwy. to Heritage Ave. 0.45 100 l2 C3U Thompson Terrace Glade Rd. to SH 26 0.26 I00 13 C2U Roberts Rd. Glade Rd. to N. City Limits 0.39 100 I-1 Intersection Brown Trl. &Cheek-Sparger Rd. Intersection Improvements n/a 100 1-2 Intersection Glade Rd. & Riverwalk Dr. Intersection Improvements n/a 100 I-3 Intersection Bedford Rd. &Cheek-Sparger Rd. Signal Installation n/a I00 I-4 Intersection Jackson Rd. &Cheek-Sparger Rd. Intersection Improvements n/a 100 I-5 Intersection Martin Pkwy. &Cheek-Sparger Rd. intersection Improvements n/a 100 1-6 Intersection Pool Rd. & Glade Rd. Intersection Improvements n/a I00 1-7 Intersection Heritage Ave. &Cheek-Sparger Rd. Signal Installation n/a 100 1-8 Intersection Glade Rd., Bedford Rd., Thom son Terrace, Villa e Park Intersection 1 rovements n/a 100 I P6D Colleyville Blvd. S. City Limits to N. City Limits 4.18 50 14 MC4U Bmnsford Rd. (I) Glade Rd. [o Timberline SL N. 0.44 100% 15 C3U Bmnsford Rd. (2) Timberline SL N. to L.D. Lockett Rd. 0.75 100 16 C2U White Dc L.D. Lockett Rd. to Westcoat Dr. 0.35 l00 l7 C2U Westcoat Dc L.D. Lockett Rd. to John McCain Rd. 1.20 100 l8 M4U Glade Rd (4) West City Limit to Bmnsford Rd 0.99 100 19 C2U McDonwell School Rd. (1) Precinct Line Rd to Herbert St 0.13 100% 20 C2U McDonwell School Rd. (2) Herber[ St. to Westcoat Dr. 0.99 100% 21 MC4U Church SL (2) Pleasant Run Rd. to SH 26 0.27 100 2 22 MC2U John McCain Rd. Westcoat Dr. to SH 26 1.69 I00 23 M2U Pleasant Run Rd. SH 26 [o N. City Limits 2.61 100 24 C2U L.D. Lockett Rd. Precinct Line Rd. to Pleasant Run Rd. 1.93 100 25 MC4U Bogart Dc Pleasant Run Rd. to SH 26 0.43 100 26 MC2U Lavaca Trl. Precinct Line Rd. to Mustang Trl. 0.56 100 27 MC2U Murphy Rd. Precinct Line Rd. to 2,465 feet W. of Precinct Line Rd. 0.47 100 1-9 Intersection McDonwell School Rd. &Westcoat Dc Intersection Improvements n/a I00 I-10 Intersection John McCain Rd. & Pleasant Run Rd. lntersce[ion Improvements n/a 100 I-I1 Intersection L.D. Lockett Rd. & Prencinct Line Rd. Intersection Improvements n/a 100% 1-12 ln[ersection John McCain Rd. &Westcoat Dr. Intersection Im rovements n/a 100 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 3 November LuVa City of Colleyville, Texas c-ty of ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Hom _ ~ and Associaties, Inc. ~ ~ Texas III. METHODOLOGY FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES A. SERVICE AREA The service areas used in the 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update are shown in the previously referenced Exhibit. The two (2) service areas cover the entire corporate boundary of the City of Colleyville. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code specifies that "the service area is limited to an area within the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed six (6) miles." An inspection of the service areas utilized in the previous roadway impact fee indicates the assumed number of service areas of two (2) is reasonable because they are approximately four (4) miles in diameter. B. SERVICE UNITS The "service unit" is a measure of consumption or use of the capital facilities by new development. In other words, it is the measure of supply and demand for roads in the City. For transportation purposes, the service unit is defined as a vehicle-mile. On the supply side, this is a lane-mile of an arterial street. On the demand side, this is a vehicle-trip of one-mile in length. The application of this unit as an estimate of either supply or demand is based on travel during the afternoon peak hour of traffic. This time period is commonly used as the basis for transportation planning and the estimation of trips caused by new development. Another aspect of the service unit is the service volume that is provided (supplied) by a lane-mile of roadway facility. This number, also referred to as capacity, is a function of the facility type, facility configuration, number of lanes, and level of service. The hourly service volumes used in the Roadway Impact Fee Update are based upon Thoroughfare Capacity Criteria published by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). Table 2 shows the service volumes as a function of the facility type. Table 2. Level of Use Table Facility Type Median Configuration Hourly Vehicle-Mile Capacity per Lane-Mile of Roadwa Facili Divided 700 Arterial Undivided 650 Collector Undivided 575 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 5 November 20021 City of Colleyville, Texas ~ Kimley-Hom ^ ~ antl Associaties, Inc. C. COST PER SERVICE UNIT city of Texas A fundamental step in the impact fee process is to establish the cost for each service unit. In the case of the roadway impact fee, this is the cost for each vehicle-mile of travel. This cost per service unit is the cost to construct a roadway (lane-mile) needed to accommodate avehicle-mile of travel at a level of service corresponding to the City's standards. The cost per service unit is calculated for each service area based on a specific list of projects within that service area. The second component of the cost per service unit is the number of service units in each service area. This number is the measure of the growth in transportation demand that is projected to occur in the ten-year period. Chapter 395 requires that Impact Fees are assessed only to pay for growth projected to occur within the next ten-years, a concept that will be covered in a later section of this report. As noted earlier, the units of demand are vehicle-miles of travel. D. COST OF THE CIP The costs that may be included in the cost per service unit are all of the implementation costs for the Impact Fee Update, as well as project costs for arterial system elements within the Capital Improvements Plan. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code specifies that the allowable costs are "...including and limited to the: 1. Construction contract price; 2. Surveying and engineering fees; 3. Land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees; and 4. Fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision." The engineer's opinion of the probable costs of the projects in the CIP is based, in part, on the calculation of a unit cost of construction. This means that a cost per linear foot of roadway is calculated based on an average price for the various components of roadway construction. This allows the probable cost to be determined by the type of facility being constructed, the number of lanes, and the length of the project. The cost for location specific items such as bridges, traffic signals, highway ramps, drainage structures, and any other special components are added to each project as appropriate. In addition, based upon discussions with City of Colleyville staff, state and county highway projects in which the City will contribute a portion of the total project cost, or those projects which have been completed, have been included in the CIP as lump sum costs. Table 3 is the CIP project list for each service area with planning level probable project costs. Detailed cost projections and methodology used for each individual project can be seen in Appendix A, Opinion of Project Cost Worksheets. It should be noted that these tables reflect only conceptual-level opinions or assumptions regarding the portions of future project costs that are recoverable through impact fees. Actual costs of construction are likely to change with time and are dependent on market and economic conditions that cannot be precisely predicted at this time. This CIP establishes the list of projects for which Impact Fees may be utilized. Essentially, it establishes a list of projects for which an impact fee funding program can be established. This is different from a City's construction CIP, which provides a list of projects for which the City is committed to building. The cost projections utilized in this study should not be utilized for the City's building program or construction CIP. 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update ( lVOVemoer tv~a City of Colleyville, Texas city oP ~ Kimley-Hom ^ ~ antl Associates, Inc. ~ - (~ Texaa Table 3. 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Cost Opinions Service Aree Prof. A I Classi0cadon P6D Roadway Colleyville Blvd Llm'fs S. City Limits to N. City Litntts Length („d) 4.18 ~ In Sersdce Area 50% Total Protect Cos[ S 5,000,000 Cos[ in Service Area $ 2,500,000 2 M4U Brown Trl. (1) Cheek-Sparger Rd to Mountain Laurel Ln. 0.23 100% $ 675,732 S 675,732 3 M4U Brown Trl. (2) Mountain Laurel Ln. to S. Ci Limits 0.31 100% $ 1,360,000 $ 1,360,000 4 MC4U Heritage Ave. Chcek-Sparger Rd. to Glade Rd. 1.14 100°/ $ 7,680,000 S 7,660,000 5 C2U Bedford Rd. Cheek-Sparger Rd. to Glade Rd. 0.90 100°/ $ 3,780,000 $ 3,780,000 6 M4D Hali Johnson Rd. SH 26 to Sycamore Dr. 0.90 100% $ 4,047,431 $ 4,047,431 7 B 9 MC4U M4D M4U Riverwalk Dr. Church SL (1) Glade Rd (1) Glade Rd. to Hall-Johnson Rd. Riverwalk Dr. to SH 26 SH 26 to Bedford Rd 0.80 0.21 0.27 100% 100% 100°/ $ 544,070 $ 1,050,000 $ 1,20Q000 $ 544,070 $ I,OSQ000 $ 1,200,000 1 10 I I 12 M2U M2U C3U Glade Rd (2) Glade Rd. (3) Thorryson Terrace Bedford Rd. to Martin Pkwy. Martin Pkwy. to Heritage Ave. Glade Rd. to SH 26 2.23 0.45 0.26 100% 10(1% 100% S 9,840,000 $ 3,175,474 $ 900,000 $ 9,840,000 S 3,175,474 S 900,000 13 I-i I-2 C2U Intersection Intersection Roberts Rd. Brawn Trl. & Cheek-S r er Rd. Glade Rd. & Riverwalk Dr. Glade Rd. to N. City Limits Intersection Im rovemrnis Intersection Improvements 0.39 Na Na 100% I lltl% 100% $ 1,320,000 $ 87,190 $ 385,000 $ 1,320,000 $ 87,190 $ 385,(100 I-3 Intescefion Bedford Rd. & Cheek-Sparger Rd. Signal Intallation Na 100% $ 150,000 $ 150,000 I-0 Intersection Jackson Rd. & Cheek-Sparger Rd. Intersection Improvements Na 100°/ $ 1,060,000 $ 1,060,000 1-5 Intersection Martin Pkwy. & Cheek-Sparger Ad Intersection Improvements Na 100°/ $ 637,000 $ 637,000 I-6 Intersection Pool Rd & Glade Rd Intersection Improvements Na 100°/ $ 1,055,000 $ 1,055,000 I-7 Intersection Herhage Ava & Cheek-Sparger Rd. Signal Installation Na 100% $ I$Q000 $ 150,000 F8 Intersection Glade Rd., Bedford Rd., Thom son Terrace, Villa a Park Intersection Im rovemrnts Na 100°/ $ 643,200 $ 643,200 Service Area Protect Cost Subtotal $ 42 240 097 Roadwa Im ant Fee Stud Cost 7500 r 0[et l.os[ [n ocnv [~.~ rur.r+ a ,rl~,w r,~~r I P6D Coll ville Blvd. S. Cit Limits to N. Ciry Limits 4.18 50°/ $ 5,000,000 $ 2,600,000 14 MC4U Dmnsford Rd (1) Glade Rd. to Timberline St. N. 0.44 100% $ 1,770,000 $ 1,770,000 IS 16 17 C3U C2U C2U Bransford Rd. (2) White Dr. Westcoat Dc Timberline St. N. to L.D. Lockett Rd. L.D. Lockett Rd. to Westcoat Dr. L.D. Lockett Rd. to John McCain Rd. 0.75 0.35 L2 100°/ 100°/ 100% $ 2,590,000 $ 1,160,000 $ 3,970,000 $ 2,590,000 $ 1,160,0110 $ 3,970,000 IS M4U Glade Rd. (4) West City Limit to Bransford Rd. 0.99 1(10% S 4,380,(100 $ 4,38Q,000 19 C2U McDonwell School Rd (I) Precind Line Rd. to Herbert St. 0.13 100% $ 339,113 $ 339,113 20 C2U McDonwell Schooi Rd (2) Herbert St. to Westcoat Dr. 0.99 100% $ 3,290,000 $ 3,290,000 21 MC4U Church SL (2) Pleasant Run Rd. to SH 26 0.27 100% $ 1,960,000 $ 1,960,000 22 MC2U John McCain Rd. Westcoat Dr. to SH 26 1.69 100% $ 6,760,000 $ 6,76Q,000 2 23 M2U Pleasant Run Rd. SH 26 to N. Cit Limits 2.61 100% $ 12,310,000 $ 12,310,000 24 C2U L.D. Lockett Rd. Precinct Line Rd. to Pleasant Run Rd. 1.93 100% $ 6,410,000 $ 6,410,000 25 26 27 MC4U MC2U MC2U Bogart Dr. Lavaca Trl. Murphy Rd. Pleasant Run Rd. to SH 26 Precinct Line Rd to Mustang Trl. Precinct Line Rd to 2,465 fcet W. of Precinct Line Rd 0.43 0.56 0.47 100°/ 100°/ 100°/ $ 1,290,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,870,000 $ 1,290,000 $ 1,60Q,000 $ 1,670,000 I-9 I-10 I-I I Intersection Intersection Intersection McDonwell School Rd. & Weslcoat Dr. John McCain Rd. & Pleasant Run Rd. L.D. Lockett Rd. & Prrncinet Line Rd. Intersection improvements Intersection Improvemrnts Intersection Im rovements Na Na Na 1110% 100°/ Il)ll% $ 451,000 S 900,000 $ 15,083 $ 451,000 $ 90Q000 $ 15,083 I-12 Intersecion John McCain Rd. & Weslcoat Dc Intersection Improvements Na 100% $ 226,000 $ 226,000 Service Area Protect Cost Subtotal $ 53 691 196 Roadwa I act Fee Stud Cost S 7 500 <n< [o[at a,osr w ocnvrs.n evs~rrs i .o~~,v~o,s Total Cost $95,946,293 Note: These costs projections have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Colleyville. 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update "] November luus City of Colleyville, Texas ~ Kimley-Hom ^ ~ antl Associates, Inc. E. SERVICE UNIT CALCULATION City of Texas The basic service unit for the computation of Colleyville's roadway impact fees is the vehicle- mile of travel during the afternoon peak-hour. To determine the cost per service unit, it is necessary to project the growth in vehicle miles of travel for the service area for the ten-year period. The growth in vehicle miles from 2005 to 2015 is based upon projected changes in population and employment for the period. In order to determine this growth, estimates of population, basic employment, service employment, and retail employment for 2005 were made by the City, along with projections for each of these demographic statistics through 2015. As previously noted, the land use assumptions developed for the 2006 update remain valid and are representative of the ten-year window. The Land Use Assumptions report details the growth estimates used for impact fee determination. The population and employment statistics in the Land Use Assumptions provides the "independent variables" that are used to calculate the existing (2005) and projected (2015) transportation service units used to establish the roadway impact fee maximum rates within each service area. The roadway demand service units (vehicle miles) for each service area are the sum of the vehicle miles "generated" by each category of land use in the service area. For the purposes of impact fees, all developed and developable land is categorized as either residential or non-residential. For residential land uses, the existing and projected population is converted to dwelling units. The number of dwelling units in each service area is multiplied by a transportation demand factor to compute the vehicle miles of travel that occur during the afternoon peak hour. This factor computes the average amount of demand caused by the residential land uses in the service area. The transportation demand factor is discussed in more detail below. For non-residential land uses, the process is similar. The Land Use Assumptions provides existing and projected number of building square footages for three (3) categories of employment -basic, service, and retail. These categories correspond to an aggregation of other specific land use categories based on the NAICS (North American Industrial Classification System). Building square footage is the most common independent variable for the estimation of non- residential trips in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7`" Edition. This statistic is more appropriate than the number of employees because building square footage is tied more closely to trip generation and is known at the time of application for any development or development modification (e.g. increase in density or change in land use) that would require the assessment of an impact fee. The existing and projected land use assumptions for the dwelling units and the square footage of basic, service, and retail land uses provide the basis for the projected increase in vehicle miles of travel. As noted earlier, a transportation demand factor is applied to these values and then summed to calculate the total peak hour vehicle-miles of demand for each service area. 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update $ November 2008 City of Colleyville, Texas Ctty of ~ Kimley-Hom ~ _ ^ ~ antl Associates, Inc. ~ TexaB The transportation demand factors are aggregate rates derived from two sources -the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7t" Edition and the latest Regional Origin-Destination Travel Survey performed by NCTCOG. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition provides the number of trips that are produced or attracted to the land use for each dwelling unit, square foot of building, or other corresponding unit. For the retail category of land uses, the rate is adjusted to account for the fact that a percentage of retail trips are made by people who would otherwise be traveling past that particular establishment anyway, such as a trip between work and home. These trips are called pass-by trips, and since the travel demand is accounted for in the land use calculations relative to the primary trip, it is necessary to discount the retail rate to avoid double counting trips. The next component of the transportation demand factor accounts for the length of each trip. The average trip length for each category is based on the region-wide travel characteristics survey conducted by NCTCOG. The computation of the transportation demand factor is detailed in the following equation: TDF=T*(1-Pb)*L,~x where... L,~x = min(L * OD or 4) Variables: TDF =Transportation Demand Factor, T =Trip Rate (peak hour trips /unit), Pb =Pass-By Discount (% of trips), Lmax =Maximum Trip Length (miles), L =Average Trip Length (miles), and OD = Origin-Destination Reduction (50%) The maximum trip length was limited to four (4) miles based on the maximum trip length within each service area. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code allows for a service area diameter of six (6) miles; however the service areas within Colleyville are more closely approximated with a four (4) mile diameter. The adjustment made to the average trip length statistic in the computation of the maximum trip length is the origin-destination reduction. This adjustment is made because the roadway impact fee is charged to both the origin and destination end of the trip. For example, impact fee methodology will account for a trip from home to work within Colleyville to both residential and non-residential land uses. To avoid counting these trips as both residential and non-residential trips, a 50% origin-destination (OD) reduction factor is applied. Therefore, only half of the trip length is assessed to each land use. 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 9 November 2008 City of Colleyville, Texas ctcy or ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Hom ~ - - _ ~ antl Associaties, Inc. ~ TexaB Table 4 shows the derivation of the Transportation Demand Factor for the residential land uses and the three (3)non-residential land use categories. The values utilized for all variables shown in the transportation demand factor equation are also shown in the table. Table 4. Transportation Demand Factor Calculations Variable Residential Basic Service Retail T 1.01 0.98 1.49 5.06 Pb 0% 0% 0% 30% L 17.21 10.02 10.92 6.43 LmaX * 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.22 TDF 4.04 3.92 5.96 11.39 * L,„aX is less than 4 miles for retail land uses; therefore this lower trip length is used for calculating the TDF for retail land uses The application of the demographic projections and the transportation demand factors are presented in the 10-Year Growth Projections in Table 5. This table shows the total vehicle miles by service area for the years 2005 and 2015. These estimates and projections lead to the Vehicle Miles of Travel for both 2005 and 2015. 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 10 November 2UU2S City of Colleyville, Texas ~ Kimley-Hom ^ ~ and Associates, Inc. y ~i '~^',, u .O QI ~..~ 3 0 riSr V ~~ I ~' 'I a~ f0 v V O 0 N n 0 W a O O N off') N N J N M ~ ~3 J _ o o v v f a ~ o N fA W J ~ ji ~ O C O 7 O W r .- ~ V J U _ ~ ? N ° rn J W Z m 7 r > W N g ~ v cv r= ~ o z W O y W Z ~ ~ F- ~ N r g N ~ ~O O M ~ ~ a 0 a O ~ N U ~ ~ ~ ~ N G ~ W Q ~ } H 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Colleyville, Texas N Oa N N V rn of r, N N tD 7 N N N r b N r N C1ty of Texas N G O W N G N C G ~ O ~ y7 N Q ~ h ~ . a' J d O O u. I 2 ~ n d N J Z1 C l0 L N m N O ~ m > ~ ~ 0 7 of N ~ ~ ~ J.c`~ .C O ~ ~ O rn ~ m .n c o N S ~~~, ;_~ ~ 3 u. v ~ ~ ~ N N 3 ~ .N C 1 ~ ~ O N i s p~ ~ l ! Y r L o i >, O ~ ~ W J ~ lL h C ~ C ~ 1 ~ p F ~ ~ .T ~ ~ O N 3 D. ~ ~ ~ C j Q O C ~ T j O N m a y 'o ~° ~° t v 1 ~ J ~ U V U 0 ~y O .C (0 N - U tL ti t~ V1 J y U W ~ m u~i _ ~ v v W ~ of .- M to W J lL V d' ~ O O O O W J r .- v v _ ~ U = Z N W N ~o v o J W 2 ~ ~ ~ i c o g 3 ~ v r a v z o ~_ W W ~_ N W Z ~ N ~ ~ M N ~f1 U J c0 n ~ aD N ? _ ~ N f00 d C O N O W N l0 ~ N ~ a W J Wt ~ N V ~ J W U ~ ~~ ~ ,~ , c v ~ ~ N Q F W Q } N N 11 November 211U1S ~ Kimley-Hom ^ ~ antl Associates, Inc. IV. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION ~tcy or -_ C~ Texas A. MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT This section presents the maximum assessable impact fee rate calculated for each service area. The maximum assessable impact fee is the allowable cost of the CIP for Roadway Impact Fees for the service area, divided by the growth in travel attributable to new development projected to occur within the 10-year period. A majority of the components of this calculation have been described and presented in previous sections of this report. The purpose of this section is to document the computation for each service area and to demonstrate that the guidelines provided by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code have been addressed. Table 6 illustrates the computation of the maximum assessable impact fee computed for both service areas. Each row in the table is numbered to simplify explanation of the calculation. Line Title Descri tion Total Vehicle-Miles of The total number of vehicle-miles added to the service area based on 1 Capacity Added by the the capacity, length, and number of lanes in each project (from CIP Appendix B -CIP Units of Supply) Each project identified in the Impact Fee CIP will add a certain amount of capacity to the City's roadway network based on its length and classification. This line displays the total amount added within each service area. Total Vehicle-Miles of A measure of the amount of traffic currently using the roadway 2 Existing Demand facilities upon which capacity is being added. (from Appendix B - CIP Units of Supply) A number of facilities identified in the Impact Fee CIP have traffic currently utilizing a portion of their existing capacity. This line displays the total amount of capacity along these facilities currently being used by existing traffic. Total Vehicle-Miles of Number of vehicle-miles of travel that are not accommodated by the 3 Existing Deficiencies existing roadway system (from Appendix C -Existing Facilities Inventory) In order to ensure that existing deficiencies on the City's roadway network are not recoverable through impact fees, this line is based on the entire roadway network within the service area. Any roadway within the service area that is deficient -even those not identified on the Impact Fee CIP -will have these additional trips removed from the calculation. Net Amount of Vehicle- A measurement of the amount of vehicle-miles added by the CIP that 4 Miles of Capacity will not be utilized by existing demand (Line 1-Line 2 -Line 3) Added This calculation identifies the portion of the Impact Fee CIP (in vehicle-miles) that maybe recoverable through the collection of impact fees. 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update I2 November zuus City of Colleyville, Texas ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Hom ~ antl Associates, Inc. cuy o~ TexaB Total Cost of the CIP The total cost of the projects within each service area (from Table 3: g 10-Year Capital Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with within the Service Area Conceptual Level Cost Opinions) This line simply identifies the total cost of all of the projects identified in each service area. Cost of Net Capacity The total CIP cost (Line 5) prorated by the ratio of Net Capacity 6 Supplied Added (Line 4) to Total Capacity Added (Line 1). [(Line 4 /Line 1) (Line 5)] Using the ratio of vehicle-miles added by the Impact Fee CIP available to serve future growth to the total vehicle-miles added, the total cost of the Impact Fee CIP is reduced to the amount available for future growth (i.e. excluding existing usage and deficiencies). ~ Cost to Meet Existing The difference between the Total Cost of the CIP (Line 5) and the Needs and Usage Cost of the Net Capacity supplied (Line 6). (Line 5 -Line 6) This line is provided for information purposes only - it is to present the portion of the total cost of the Impact Fee RIP that is required to meet existing demand. Total Vehicle-Miles of Based upon the growth projection provided in the Land Use 8 New Demand over Ten Assumptions, an estimate of the number of new vehicle-miles within Years the service area over the next ten ears. (from Table 5) This line presents the amount of growth (in vehicle-miles) projected to occur within each service area over the next ten years. Percent of Capacity The result of dividing Total Vehicle-Miles of New Demand (Line 8) 9 Added Attributable to by the Net Amount of Capacity Added (Line 4), limited to 100% New Growth (Line 10). This calculation is required by Chapter 395 to ensure 10 Chapter 395 Check capacity added is attributable to new growth. In order to ensure that the vehicle-miles added by the Impact Fee CIP do not exceed the amount needed to accommodate growth beyond the ten-year window, a comparison of the two values is performed. If the amount of vehicle-miles added by the Impact Fee CIP exceeds the growth projected to occur in the next ten years, the Impact Fee CIP cost is reduced accordingly. Cost of Capacity Added 'The result of multiplying the Cost of Net Capacity Added (Line 6) by 11 Attributable to New the Percent of Capacity Added Attributable to New Growth, limited to Growth 100% Line 9). This value is the total Impact Fee CIP project costs (excluding financial costs) that may be recovered through impact fees. This line is determined considering the limitations to impact fees required by the Texas legislature. 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 13 November zuuu City of Colleyville, Texas ~ Kimley-Hom ^~ antl Associates, Inc. City of Texas The result of multiplying the Cost of Capacity Added Attributable to 12 Financing Cost New Growth (Line 11) by a percentage providing by the City to account for debt service costs and interest earnings. 13 Interest Earnin s These values account for the projected interest charges and other financial costs that may be included in the impact fee calculation. Based on information provided by the City, financing costs were assumed to be 19.67% of Line 11, while the interest earnings were assumed to be 3%. Cost of CIP and The total CIP cost including fmancing recoverable through Impact 14 Financing Attributable Fees. (Line 11 + Line 12 + Line 13). to Growth This value is the total Impact Fee CIP project costs (including financial costs) that may be recovered through impact fees. Pre-Credit Maximum The result of dividing the Cost of the CIP and Financing Attributed to 15 Fee Per Service Unit New Growth (Line 14) by the Total Vehicle Miles of New Demand (Line 8). (Line 14 /Line 8) This amount is the maximum assessable impact fee per service unit prior to consideration of the roadway impact fee credit. 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 14 November 2008 City of Colleyville, Texas ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Hom ~ and Associates, Inc. Ctiy of _ -....... C~ __ Texas B. PLAN FOR AWARDING THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CREDIT Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires the Capital Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees to contain specific enumeration of a plan for awarding the impact fee credit. Section 395.014 of the Code states: "(7) A plan for awarding: (A) a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan; or (B) In the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan..." The City of Colleyville has determined that the maximum assessable impact fee per service unit shall be 50% of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvement plan. Therefore, the Pre-Credit Maximum Fee Per Service Unit (Line 15) is multiplied by 50% to obtain the Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit (Line 16). 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 1$ lvovemoer tuva City of Colleyville, Texas ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Hom ~ antl Associa6es, Inc. C-ty Of t, Texas Table 6. Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee SERVICE AREA: 1 2 1 TOTAL VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED BY THE CIP 23,422 25,785 (FROM CIP UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B) 2 TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEMAND 15,048 17,421 (FROM CIP UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B) 3 TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES 3,079 2,067 (FROM EXISTING FACILITIES INVENTORY, APPENDIX C) 4 NET AMOUNT OF VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED 5,295 6,297 (LINE 1 -LINE 2 -LINE 3) 5 TOTAL COST OF THE CIP WITHIN SERVICE AREA $ 42,247,597 $ 53,698,696 (FROM TABLE 3) 6 COST OF NET CAPACITY SUPPLIED $ 9,$50,586 $ 13,114,503 (LINE 4 /LINE 1) * (LINE 5) ,~ COST TO MEET EXISTING NEEDS AND USAGE $ 32,697,011 $ 40,584,193 (LINE 5 -LINE 6) 8 TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND OVER TEN YEARS 5,276 5,607 (FROM TABLE 5 and Land Use Assumptions) 9 PERCENT OF CAPACITY ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH 99.6% 89.0% (LINE 8 /LINE 4) 10 IF LINE 8 > LINE 4, REDUCE LINE 9 TO 100%, 99.6% 89.0% OTHERWISE NO CHANGE 11 COST OF CAPACITY ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH $ 9512,384 $ 11,671,908 (LINE 6 * LINE 10) 12 FINANCING COSTS $ 1,871,086 $ 2,295,864 13 INTEREST EARNINGS $ (285,372) $ (350,157) 14 COST OF CIP AND FINANCING ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH $ 11,098,098 $ 13,617,615 (LINE 11 + LINE 12 + LINE 13) PRE-CREDIT MAX FEE PER SERVICE UNIT ($ PER VEH-MI) $ 104 2 $ 2 429 15 (LINE 14 /LINE 8) , , MAX ASSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT ($ PER VEH-MI) $ 1 052 $ 1,215 16 (Line 15 * 50%) , 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 16 tvovemoer Ewa City of Colleyville, Texas cuy or ~ Kimley-Hom ~ antl Associaties, Inc. ~ - ~ Texas C. SERVICE UNIT DEMAND PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT The roadway impact fee is determined by multiplying the impact fee rate by the number of service units projected for the proposed development. For this purpose, the City utilizes the Land Use/Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET), presented in Table 7. This table lists the predominant land uses that may occur within the City of Colleyville. For each land use, the development unit that defines the development's magnitude with respect to transportation demand is shown. Although every possible use cannot be anticipated, the majority of uses are found in this table. If the exact use is not listed, one similar in trip-making characteristics can serve as a reasonable proxy. The individual land uses are grouped into categories, such as residential, office, commercial, industrial, and institutional. The trip rates presented for each land use is a fundamental component of the LUVMET. The trip rate is the average number of trips generated during the afternoon peak hour by each land use per development unit. The next column, if applicable to the land use, presents the number of trips to and from certain land uses reduced bypass-by trips, as previously discussed. The source of the trip generation and pass-by statistics is the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7`" Edition, the latest edition of the definitive source for trip generation data. This manual utilizes trip generation studies for a variety of land uses throughout the United States, and is the standard used by traffic engineers and transportation planners for traffic impact analysis, site design, and transportation planning. To convert vehicle trips to vehicle-miles, it is necessary to multiply trips by trip length. The adjusted trip length values are based on the Regional Origin-Destination Travel Survey performed by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). The other adjustment to trip length is the 50% origin-destination reduction to avoid double counting of trips. At this stage, another important aspect of the state law is applied -the limit on transportation service unit demand. If the adjusted trip length is above four (4) miles, the maximum trip length used for calculation is reduced to four (4) miles. This reduction, as discussed previously, limits the maximum trip length to the approximate size of the service areas. The remaining column in the LUVMET shows the vehicle-miles per development unit. This number is the product of the trip rate and the maximum trip length. This number, previously referred to as the Transportation Demand Factor, is used in the impact fee estimate to compute the number of service units consumed by each land use application. The number of service units is multiplied by the impact fee rate (established by City ordinance) in order to determine the impact fee for a development. 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 1'] November 2008 City of Colleyville, Texas ~ Kimley-Hom ^ ~ antl Associahes, Inc. City of 7'exa8 Table 7. Land Use /Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET) and Use Category ITE Land Use Code Development Unit Trip Gen Rate (PM) Pass- by Rate Pass-by Source Trip Rate NCFCOG Trip Length (~) Adj. For O-D Adj. Trip Len th g (mi) Max Trip Len h gt (mi) Veh-Mi Per Dev- Unit ORT AND TERMINAL Tmck Terminal 030 Acre 6.55 6.55 10.02 50% S.OI 4.00 26.20 INDUSTRIAL General Li ht Industrial 110 1,000 SF GFA 0.98 0.98 10.02 SO % 5.01 4.00 3.92 General Heav Industrial 120 1,000 SF GFA 0.68 0.68 10.02 50 % S.OI 4.00 2.72 tndustrial Pazk 130 1,000 SF GFA 0.86 0.86 10.02 50 % 5.01 4.00 3.44 Warehousin 150 1,000 SF GFA 0.59 0.59 10.83 50% 5.42 4.00 2.36 Mini-Warehouse ISl 1,000 SF GFA 0.26 0.26 10.83 50% 5.42 4.00 L04 SIDENTIAL Sin a-Famil DetachedHousin 210 Dwellin Unit LOl L01 17.21 SO% 8.61 4.00 4.04 A artmenUMulti-famil 220 Dwellin Unit 0.62 0.62 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 2.48 Residential Condominium/Townhome 230 Dwellin Unit 0.52 0.52 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 2.08 Mobile Home Park 240 Dwellin Unit 0.59 0.59 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 2.36 Assisted Livin 254 Dwellin Unit 0.22 0.22 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 0.88 LODGING Hotel 310 Room 0.59 0.59 6.43 SO% 3.22 3.22 1.90 Motel /Other Lodging Facilities 320 Room 0.47 0.47 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 1.51 RECREATIONAL Drivin Ran e 432 Tee 1.25 1.25 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 4.02 Golf Course 430 Acre 0.30 0.30 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 0.96 Health/Rec. Clubs and Facilities 495 1,000 SF GFA L64 1.64 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 5.27 Ice Rink 465 1,000 SF GFA 2.36 2.36 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 7.59 Miniature Golf 431 Hole 0.33 0.33 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 1.06 Multiplex Movie Theater 445 Screens 13.64 13.64 6.43 50 % 3.22 3.22 43.85 Rac uet/Tennis Club 491 Court 3.35 3.35 6.43 SO% 3.22 3.22 10.77 1NSTITUTIONAL Church 560 1,000 SF GFA 0.66 0.66 4.20 50% 2.10 2.10 1.39 Da Care Center 565 1,000 SF GFA 13.18 13.18 4.20 50 % 2.10 2.10 27.68 Prima /Middle School (I-8) 522 Students 0.15 O.1S 4.20 50% 2.10 2.10 0.32 Hi h School (9-12) 530 Students 0.14 O.I4 4.20 50% 2.10 2.10 0.29 1r / Communi Colle e 540 Students 0.12 0.12 4.20 50% 2.10 2.10 0.25 Universi /Cone a 550 Students 0.21 0.21 4.20 50% 2.10 2.10 0.44 MEDICAL Clinic 630 1,000 SF GFA S.18 5.18 7.55 SO% 3.78 3.78 19.55 Hos ital 610 Beds 1.30 L30 7.55 50% 3.78 3.78 4.91 Nursin Home 620 Beds 0.22 0.22 7.55 50% 3.78 3.78 0.83 OFFICE Co orate Head uarters Buildin 714 1,000 SF GFA 1.40 L40 10.92 50 % 5.46 4.00 5.60 General Office Buildin 710 1,000 SF GFA L49 1.49 10.92 50% 5.46 4.00 5.96 MedicaUDental Office 720 1,000 SF GFA 3.72 3.72 10.92 SO% 5.46 4.00 14.88 Sin le Tenant Office Buildin 71 S 1,000 SF GFA 1.73 1.73 10.92 50 % 5.46 4.00 6.92 Office/Business Park 750 1,000 SF GFA LSp LSO 10.92 50% 5.46 4.00 6.00 COMMERCIAL Automobile Related Automobile Care Center 942 1,000 SF GFA 3.38 40% B 2.03 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 6.52 Automobile Parts Sales 843 1,000 SF GFA 5.98 43 % A 3.41 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 10.96 Gasoline/Service Station 944 Fuelin Position 13.86 42% A 8.04 L20 50% 0.60 0.60 4.82 Gasoline/Service Station w/ Conv Market 945 Fuelin Position 13.38 56 % B 5.89 1.20 50 % 0.60 0.60 3.53 Service Station w/ Conv Market and Car Wash 946 Fuelin Position 13.33 56 % A 5.87 1.20 SO % 0.60 0.60 3.52 New and Used Car Sales 841 1,000 SF GFA 2.64 20 % B 2.1 l 6.43 SO % 3.22 3.22 6.79 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Center Self-Service Caz Wash 941 947 Service Position Stall 5.19 5.54 40% 40% B B 3.11 3.32 6.43 1.20 50% SO% 3.22 0.60 3.22 0.60 10.01 L99 Tire Store 848 1,000 SF GFA 5.03 28 % A 3.62 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 11.64 Dinin Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru 934 1,000 SF GFA 34.64 50% A 17.32 4.79 50 % 2.40 2.40 41.48 Fast Food Restaurant without Drive-Thru 933 1,000 SF GFA 26.1 S 50 % B 13.08 4.79 50% 2.40 2.40 31.31 Hi h Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant Sit Down Restaurant 932 931 1,000 SF GFA 1,000 SF GFA 10.92 7.49 43 % 44 % A A 6.22 4.19 4.79 4.79 SO % 50% 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 14.91 10.05 Other Retail Free-Standin Retail Store 81S 1,000 SF GFA 5.06 30% C 3.54 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 tL39 Garden Center Nurse Home lm rovement Su erstore Pharmac /Dru tore Shoppin Center Su ermarket To !Children's Su erstore Video Rental Store 817 862 881 820 SSO 864 896 1,000 SF GFA 1,000 SF GFA 1,000 SF GFA 1,000 SF GFA 1,000 SF GFA 1,000 SF GFA 1,000 SF GFA 3.80 2.45 8.62 3.75 10.45 4.99 13.60 30 % 30% 49% 34% 36% 30% 50% B B A A A B B 2.66 1.72 4.40 2.48 6.69 3.49 6.80 6.43 6.43 6.43 6.43 6.43 6.43 6.43 SO% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 8.55 5.51 14.13 7.96 21.50 11.23 2L86 ERVICES Bank (Walk-In) Bank Drive In 911 912 1,000 SF GFA 1,000 SF GFA 33.15 45.74 40% 47% B A 19.89 24.24 3.39 3.39 50% 50% 1.70 1.70 L70 1.70 33.71 4L09 A: October 1998 RE Trip Generation handbook B: Estimated by Kimley-Hom based on ITE razes Cor similar categories C: rIF, rue adjusted upward by KIIA based on logical relationship to other categories 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 18 November 2008 City of Colleyville, Texas ~ Kimley-Hom ^ ~ and Associates, Inc. V. SAMPLE CALCULATIONS c-cy of C~ Texas The following section details two (2) examples of maximum assessable roadway impact fee calculations. Example 1: Development Tvne -One (1) Unit of Single-Family Housing in Service Area 1 Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Steps -Example 1 Determine Development Unit and Vehicle-Miles Per Development Unit Step From Table 7 [Land Use - Vehicle Mile Equivalency Table) 1 Development Type: I Dwelling Unit of Single-Family Detached Housing Number of Development Units: 1 Dwelling Unit Veh-Mi Per Development Unit: 4.04 Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit Step From Table 6, Line 16 [Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit) 2 Service Area 1: $1,052 Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Impact Fee = # of Development Units *Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service Unit Step 3 Impact Fee = 1 * 4.04 * $1,052 Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = $4,250.08 Example 2: nPVPl~nment Tvne - 125.000 square foot Home Improvement Superstore in Service Area 2 Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Steps -Example 2 Determine Development Unit and Vehicle-Miles Per Development Unit From Table 7 [Land Use -Vehicle Mile Equivalency Table] Step I Development Type: 125,000 square feet of Home Improvement Superstore Development Unit: 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area Veh-Mi Per Development Unit: 5.51 Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit Step From Table 6, Line 16 [Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit) 2 Service Area 2: $1,215 Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Impact Fee = # of Development Units *Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service Unit Step 3 Impact Fee = 125 * 5.51 * $1,215 Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = $836,831.25 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 19 ivovemver tvvo City of Colleyville, Texas ~ ~ Kimley-Hom ~ and Associa6es, Inc. VI. CONCLUSION cur or Texas The City of Colleyville has established a process to implement the assessment and collection of roadway impact fees through the adoption of an impact fee ordinance that is consistent with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. This report establishes the maximum allowable roadway impact fee that could be assessed by the City of Colleyville within each of the two (2) service areas. The maximum assessable calculated in this report are as follows (from Table 6): SERVICE AREA: 1 2 16 MAX ASSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT ($ PER VEH-MI) $ 1,052 $ 1,215 (Line I5 * 50%) This document serves as a guide to the assessment of roadway impact fees pertaining to future development and the City's need for roadway improvements to accommodate that growth. Following the public hearing process, the City Council may establish an amount to be assessed (if any) up to the maximum established within this report and update the Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance accordingly. In conclusion, it is our opinion that the data and methodology used in this update are appropriate and consistent with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. Furthermore, the Land Use Assumptions and the proposed Capital Improvements Plan are appropriately incorporated into the process. 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Update 20 November 2008 City of Colleyville, Texas